New gTLD Program
Community Priority Evaluation Report
Report Date: 10 August 2016
Application ID:
Applied-for String:
Applicant Name:

1-1702-73085
MERCK
Merck Registry Holdings

Overall Community Priority Evaluation Summary
Community Priority Evaluation Result
Did Not Prevail
Thank you for your participation in the New gTLD Program. After careful consideration and extensive
review of the information provided in your application, including documents of support, the Community
Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the requirements specified in the
Applicant Guidebook. Your application did not prevail in Community Priority Evaluation.
Your application may still resolve string contention through the other methods as described in Module 4 of
the Applicant Guidebook.
Panel Summary
Overall Scoring

9 Point(s)Criteria#1: Community Establishment#2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community#3: Registration Policies#4: Community Endorsement
Total

EarnedAchievable

4
0
2
3
9

4
4
4
4
16

Minimum Required Total Score to Pass 14

Criterion #1: Community Establishment
4/4 Point(s)1-A Delineation
2/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined by the application met
the criterion for Delineation as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the
Applicant Guidebook (AGB), as the community defined in the application demonstrates sufficientdelineation, organization, and pre-existence. The application received a score of 2 out of 2 points undercriterion 1-A: Delineation.
Delineation
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for delineation: there must be a clear, straightforward
membership definition and there must be awareness and recognition of a community (as defined by theapplication) among its members.
Page 1

According to the application:
The Merck community includes, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Merck Core Businesses: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, and Consumer Care
2. Philanthropic and Corporate Responsibility Programs, such as: Merck for Mothers, The Merck
MECTIZAN Donation Program, Merck Company Foundation, and Merck Helps (The ACT
Program; SUPPORT Program; Merck Patient Assistance Program; Merck Vaccine Patient
Assistance Program)
3. Medical and Scientific Publications and Websites, such as: The Merck Manual, The Merck Index,
MerckResearch.net, Merck Medicus, Merck Academy, The Merck Institute for Science Education(MISE), UNCF⁄Merck Science Initiative, Merck Engage, and Merck Services
The Merck community coalesces around the Merck family of marks and the community of intereststhat relate to those marks. The Merck community is based on Merck’s widely recognized, registeredfamily of Merck marks, and in the community’s internal union around the values, purposes, andcommon aims developed through decades of development. The community to be served by the.MERCK gTLD is therefore defined and readily identifiable, with members at all levels sharing
interests, aims, and commitments to service…
The Merck community is easily defined by its authorized use of the Merck family of marks. A
member of the Merck community must be authorized to use one or more marks controlled by
Merck.
According to the AGB, “Delineation relates to the membership of a community, where a clear and straightforward membership definition scores high, while an unclear, dispersed or unbound definition scores low.”
As required by the AGB, the application shows a clear and straightforward membership definition, given therequirement of the authorized use of the “Merck family of marks” used by the applicant for the purposes ofdefining the proposed community. Moreover, the applicant clearly defines the community as a logicalgrouping of Merck businesses, programs, and licensees. The membership is tightly delineated through thecategories and requirements noted above and thus satisfies the AGB’s requirement for a clear andstraightforward membership definition.
According to the AGB’s second Delineation criterion, “community” implies “more of cohesion than a merecommonality of interest” and there should be “an awareness and recognition of a community among its
members.” The community as defined in the application has awareness and recognition among its members.
This is because the community as defined consists of Merck & Co.1 businesses, subsidiaries, corporate
programs, and Merck mark licensees. These members cohere by way of a shared corporate governance,
values, and mission. In many cases, these entities would also have shared corporate financial governance andreporting.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application satisfies both of the conditions tofulfill the requirements for delineation.
Organization
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for organization: there must be at least one entity
mainly dedicated to the community and there must be documented evidence of community activities.
1 According to the application, “Merck & Co. Inc., parent of Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp…(collectively “Merck”), is a

Fortune 100 company and one of the largest healthcare companies in the world…Merck has created a new, wholly-owned
subsidiary, Merck Registry Holdings, Inc. (“MRH”), to apply for and bring the .MERCK gTLD to market. The gTLD string forwhich MRH is applying reflects this community: .MERCK.

Page 2

According to the AGB, “organized implies that there is at least one entity mainly dedicated to the community,with documented evidence of community activities.” The applicant’s parent company, Merck & Co.2, is itself
an organization that is expressly dedicated to its membership, i.e., the community as defined in theapplication. Merck & Co. has not organized itself or its members for the purposes of obtaining a TLD but
represents the members of its defined community as a matter of its mission. Additionally, as required by the
AGB, Merck & Co. demonstrates that it engages in community activities. These include common corporate
activities such as an annual general meeting for shareholders.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application satisfies both of the conditions tofulfill the requirements for organization.
Pre-existence
To fulfill the requirements for pre-existence, the community must have been active prior to September 2007
(when the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed) and must display an awareness andrecognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application, i.e., Merck & Co. and its subsidiaries, affiliates, foundations andrelated parties, and approved licensees, was active prior to September 2007 as required by the AGB, section
4.2.3. In 1917 Merck & Co. was established as an independent company. As discussed above, Merck’s
membership, in addition to being active prior to 2007, demonstrates the AGB’s requirements for awarenessand recognition.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application fulfills the requirements for preexistence.
1-B Extension
2/2 Point(s)The Panel determined that the community as identified in the application met the criterion for Extension
specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as the application fulfilled
the requirements for the size and longevity of the community. The application received a score of 2 out of 2
points under criterion 1-B: Extension.
Size
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for size: the community must be of considerable size
and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application is of considerable size. According to the applicant’s website, thecompany employs around 68,000 people globally. Additionally, as discussed above, the community definedby the application demonstrates the recognition and awareness required by the AGB.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application satisfies both of the conditions tofulfil the requirements for size.
Longevity
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for longevity: the community must demonstrate
longevity and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application demonstrates longevity. Merck & Co. has been in existence fornearly 100 years, is a publicly traded company, and invested $6.6 billion in research and development in20153. There is clear evidence that the company intends to operate in the future. Additionally, as discussed
above, the community defined by the application demonstrates the recognition and awareness required by
the AGB.
2 Ibid.
3 See http://www.merck.com/about/our-history/facts/home.html

Page 3

The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application satisfies both of the conditions tofulfill the requirements for longevity.

Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community
0/4 Point(s)2-A Nexus
0/3 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Nexus as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB. The string does not identify or match the name of thecommunity as defined in the application, nor is it a well-known short-form or abbreviation of thecommunity. The application received a score of 0 out of 3 points under criterion 2-A: Nexus.
To receive the maximum score for Nexus, the applied-for string must match the name of the community or
be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community name. To receive a partial score for Nexus (of2 out of 3 points; 1 point is not possible), the applied-for string must identify the community. “Identify
means that the applied-for string should closely describe the community or the community members,
without over-reaching substantially beyond the community.”
According to the AGB, “identify means that the applied for string closely describes the community or thecommunity members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community” (AGB, 4.2.3, emphasis added), andthe applied-for string must at least identify the community for full or partial credit. Although the string
Merck matches the name of the community as defined by the applicant, it also matches the name of anothercorporate entity known as “Merck” outside of the US and Canada. This Germany-based company, Merck
KGaA, operates in the pharmaceutical and chemicals industry, and has 50,000 employees in 68 countries. It
is therefore a substantial entity also known by the name “Merck”. The Panel has determined, therefore, thatthe string is “over-reaching substantially beyond the community” (AGB) and cannot identify the community
it defines because the applied-for string also identifies a substantial entity—Merck KGaA—that is not part ofthe community defined by the applicant.
The Panel determined that the applied-for string does not match or identify the community or thecommunity members as defined in the application. It therefore does not meet the requirements for Nexus.
2-B Uniqueness
0/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Uniqueness as specified in section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus.
The application received a score of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 2-B: Uniqueness.
To fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness, the string must have no other significant meaning beyond
identifying the community described in the application and it must also score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus. The string
as defined in the application does not demonstrate uniqueness as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on
Nexus and is therefore ineligible for a score of 1 for Uniqueness. This is based on the Panel’s determinationthat the applied-for string “.MERCK” does not identify the community defined by the application according
to AGB standards. Therefore, since the string does not identify the community, it cannot be said to “have noother significant meaning beyond identifying the community” (AGB, emphasis added). The Panel determined thatthe applied-for string does not satisfy the condition to fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness.
Criterion #3: Registration Policies
2/4 Point(s)3-A Eligibility
1/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application met the criterion for Eligibility as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as eligibility is restricted to community members. The
application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-A: Eligibility.

Page 4

To fulfill the requirements for Eligibility, the registration policies must restrict the eligibility of prospective
registrants to community members. According to the application:
Registrations within the community may be made by the following businesses, institutions, ororganizations:(a) Qualified subsidiaries and affiliates(b) Merck foundations and related parties(c) Approved licensees
As the operator of the .MERCK gTLD, MRH will take its responsibilities to the community
extremely seriously. Due to the nature of the activities that will be conducted using the .MERCK
gTLD, it is essential that registrations only be permitted by verified members of the community,
namely qualified subsidiaries and affiliates of Merck, Merck foundations and related parties, as well
as approved licensees.
The application therefore demonstrates adherence to the AGB’s requirement by restricting domain
registration to entities that are members of the community defined by the application. The Panel determinedthat the application satisfies the condition to fulfill the requirements for Eligibility.
3-B Name Selection
0/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Name Selection as specified in
section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as name selection rules
are not consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for TLD. The application
received a score of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 3-B: Name Selection.
According to the application:
II. Name Selection: What Types of Second-Level Names may be Registered in the gTLD.
At the time of filing this application, MRH has not yet finalized the specific name selection criteria.
When this criteria is finalize it will be publicly posted on the MRH website.
Therefore, the Panel determined that the application did not satisfy the conditions to fulfill the requirements
for Name Selection rules that are consistent with the applicant’s community-based purpose. This is because
the applicant did not provide name selection criteria.
3-C Content and Use
0/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Content and Use as specified in
section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as the content and use
rules included are not consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for TLD. The
application therefore received a score of 0 points under criterion 3-C: Content and Use.
To fulfill the requirements for Content and Use, the registration policies for content and use must be
consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. According to theapplication:
III. Content Use
MRH has not yet finalized an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). A draft policy has been included in
response to Question 28 of this application, but has not yet been finalized by Merck’s legal team.
Such approval and posting of the policy will be done in advance of the launch of the registry.
The applicant has acknowledged that its draft policy has not yet been finalized. Moreover, Question 28 of theapplication also does not explain a content and use policy that is consistent with the articulated communitybased purpose of the applied-for gTLD. Therefore, the application does not demonstrate adherence to the
AGB’s requirement of content and use rules.
3-D Enforcement
1/1 Point(s)Page 5

The Panel determined that the application meets the criterion for Enforcement as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB. The application provides specific enforcement
measures and outlines a coherent and appropriate appeals mechanisms. The application received a score of 1
point under criterion 3-D: Enforcement.
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement: the registration policies must
include specific enforcement measures constituting a coherent set, and there must be appropriate appeals
mechanisms. According to the application:
IV. Enforcement
MRH will enforce the AUP [Acceptable Use Policy] (which is still subject to legal review) during theterm of the .MERCK Registry Agreement.
MRH will have complete enforcement rights over registrants’ use of their .MERCK domain names.
If a registrant violates the then in effect AUP, the registrant will be in material breach of theAgreement, and along with all other rights and remedies that MRH has under this Agreement withrespect to such a breach, MRH reserves the right to revoke, suspend, terminate, cancel, or otherwise
modify the registrant’s rights to the domain name.
On a regular basis, MRH will randomly audit domain names registered in the .MERCK gTLD toensure compliance with all eligibility and use criteria. If a violation is discovered, an investigation will
immediately begin to rectify the violation.
If an applicant chooses to appeal, MRH will review the appeal to determine if there are any materialchanges to the action or activity. MRH will retain the right to assign the dispute to an ombudsman if
necessary.
The applicant outlined policies that include specific enforcement measures constituting a coherent set and an
appeals mechanism. The Panel determined that the application satisfies both of the two conditions to fulfill
the requirements for Enforcement and therefore scores 1 point.
Criterion #4: Community Endorsement
3/4 Point(s)Support for or opposition to a CPE gTLD application may come by way of an application comment on
ICANN’s website, attachment to the application, or by correspondence with ICANN. The Panel reviews
these comments and documents and as applicable attempts to verify them as per the guidelines published on
the ICANN CPE website. Further details and procedures regarding the review and verification process may
be found at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe. The table below summarizes the review andverification of all support for and opposition to the Merck Registry Holding’s application for the string“Merck”.
Summary of Review & Verification of Support/Opposition Materials as of 24 May 2016
Total Received andReviewed

Total Valid for
Verification

Verification
Attempted

Successfully
Verified

Application
Comments

0

n/a

n/a

n/a

Attachments to
20(f)

2

2

2

1

Page 6

Correspondence

24

13

13

8

Grand Total

4

15

15

9

4-A Support
2/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application fully met the criterion for Support
specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as theapplicant had documented support from the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s).
The application received a maximum score of 2 points under criterion 4-A: Support. To receive themaximum score for Support, the applicant is, or has documented support from, the recognized community
institution(s)/member organization(s), or has otherwise documented authority to represent the community.
“Recognized” means those institution(s)/organization(s) that, through membership or otherwise, are clearlyrecognized by the community members as representative of the community. To receive a partial score for
Support, the applicant must have documented support from at least one group with relevance.
Because the applicant, Merck Registry Holdings, is applying for a gTLD intended for use by its parent
company, Merck & Co. and the latter’s businesses, programs and licensees, the Panel determined that theapplicant has documented authority to represent the recognized community institution/member
organization. A recognized community institution or member organization is one which not only (1)represents the entirety of the community as defined by the application, but is also (2) recognized by the samecommunity as its representative. Merck & Co., as the parent company and apex organization for other Merck
entities, meets these standards. According to the application, “Merck has created a new wholly owned
subsidiary, Merck Registry Holdings (“MRH”), to apply for and bring the .MERCK gTLD to market.”
The Community Priority Evaluation Panel determined that the applicant therefore satisfies the requirements
for full credit for Support.
4-B Opposition
1/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application partially met the criterion for
Opposition specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook,as the application received one piece of relevant opposition. The application received a score of 1 out of 2
points under criterion 4-B: Opposition.
To receive the maximum score for Opposition, the application must not have received any opposition of
relevance. To receive a partial score for Opposition, the application must have received opposition from, at
most, one relevant group of non-negligible size. The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determinedthat there is opposition from one relevant group of non-negligible size. The applicant was subject to a legal
rights objection (LRO)5 from Merck KGaA. The latter asserts trademark rights for .Merck, to which it
contends the gTLD string is identical. As discussed under section 2-A Nexus, although the string Merck
matches the name of the community as defined by the applicant, it also matches the name of anothercorporate entity known as “Merck” outside the US and Canada (Merck KGaA). The Panel has determinedthat the opposition demonstrated by the LRO is therefore relevant. The applicant partially met therequirements for Opposition.
Disclaimer: Please note that these Community Priority Evaluation results do not necessarily determine thefinal result of the application. In limited cases the results might be subject to change. These results do notconstitute a waiver or amendment of any provision of the AGB or the Registry Agreement. For updated
application status and complete details on the program, please refer to the AGB and the ICANN New
gTLDs microsite at <newgtlds.icann.org>.
4 2 pieces of correspondence include 13 individual letters.

5 https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/25sep13/determination-2-1-1702-73085-en.pdf

Page 7